Antoine,

“…Are gravitational waves ripples in the curvature of spacetime…”

- the Matter’s spacetime is the absolute [5]4D Euclidian manifold (including, for example, till now seems nobody observed either the imaginary space or the imaginary time, as that GR postulates when claiming as real the Riemannian spacetime) and cannot be impacted by anything by definition – if somebody uses a true definition, of course; when in the GR there are no definitions/ explanations of what is spacetime at all;

“…or are it fluctuations of the gravitational field?”

- some changes of the gravity force in some points outside a system of masses, if this system isn’t stationary evidently exist – as, say, electrostatic field changes in some points outside a system of charges, if this system isn’t stationary. And that  indeed seems possible in framework of some theory that considers gravity (G-gM)field as some analogue of the E-M field. At least in this case there is no “spacetime ripples”.

“…Now gravitational waves have been observed…”

- that seems as a too bold claim. In serious physics for claims relating to some observation of a new physical effect is necessary a number of experiments that are made by a number of different independent groups, which use – and that is rather desirable – different experimental techniques. In other cases anything is possible; an example – the “discovering” of superluminal neutrino three years ago.

So let’s wait some other experimental events; though seems nobody knows now – how often some convenient "black holes’" pairs collapse in the tribal Matter.

At that indeed reproducible experiment that indeed tests the GR (more correctly – two experiments, but one was made with suffice statistics already – Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment) is simple and rather cheap – 1-2 $millions – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment

The result of this experiment with rater large probability will show that there is no “gravitational time dilation”;  and so – no a “spacetime curvature” (as well as no "ripples");

but in Nature there are only banal changes of clocks tick rate when clocks are placed in different point with different Newtonian gravity potentials - because of different corresponding gravitational mass defects; from what and from the PRS experiment follow  that photons change their energy when traveling between such points (in contrast to the GR claim), etc.

Cheers

Research The informational model – gravity; a next experiment

LIGO and the gravitational waves: the Biggest and the most Expensive LIE in science!

“They detected what can not be detected: gravitons having the speed of light and positive mass“ Adrian Ferent

LIGO scientists estimate that the black holes for this event were about 29 and 36 times the mass of the sun, and the event took place 1.3 billion years ago. 

It is like SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence an exploratory science that seeks evidence of life in the universe!

What they discovered:

1. They calculated the postive mass of the graviton, my theory explains that this is wong!

If the graviton has positive mass, it has positive momentum this means the Earth pushes you, and we suppose to fly!

“I am the first who understood and explained the Gravitation with high speed gravitons   v = 1.001762 × 1017 m/s, with Negative Momentum, Negative Mass and Negative Energy” Adrian Ferent

2. Black holes have the escape velocity bigger than the speed of light, this means the gravitons with the speed of light can not escape, this means they will never be able to come to Earth, to LIGO!

“How light can’t escape from inside event horizon of Black holes, in the same way the gravitons with the speed of light c = 2.9979 × 108 m/s can't escape from inside the event horizon. Only high speed gravitons, v = 1.001762 × 1017 m/s, can escape from inside the  event horizon of Black holes and keep the galaxy together”  Adrian Ferent

Einstein Gravitation theory: Gravitation is a distortion of space-time.

Ferent Gravitation theory: Gravitation is a force mediated by gravitons.

Einstein Gravitation theory is wrong and Ferent Gravitation theory is right!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3442022/Major-breakthrough-hunt-gravitational-waves-announced-today-Discovery-finally-prove-Einstein-s-100-year-old-theory-ripples-space-time.html

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294087093_Ferent_Gravitation_theory

When I plotted the standing waves that my own work implies, assuming that c = 1 and v = 0.05 (say), then the results looked very similar to that picture of background radiation. This implies that space time itself is 'wavelike' but being based on SR doesn't seem to involve gravity at all. This leads me to question these blanket statements that "theory X has been proven" because there are possibly other theories that predict the same result. It also surprises me how many physicists don't seem to be familiar with Popper and falsifiability. Or is this just the method to obtain funding, appeal to the general public that just wants a good story?

Gravitational waves with two polarization clearly suggest a substance to space time similar to E-M.

There is more than one theory that points to this interpretation apart form GTR which raises many paradoxes

The force of gravity in General relativity  (GR) is thought to come form the curvature of space-time.

Unfortunately the maths of GR implies infinite curvature and zero time passage at the black hole event horizon  and the black hole becomes a singularity- and yet the black hole has a radius.

The Misner Wheeler Thorne interpretation partially resolve this in  that the singularity rests inside the event horizon.

But yet another paradox arises if time stops at the event horizon (frozen star) no matter would fall in hence  black hole could not accumulate matter, and all the in-falling matter would be situated at or near the event horizon.

The solution is to alter the maths of GR.

Additionally GR falls down in a number of areas, so any new maths should also resolve these problems

Yes GR works in the weak fields of the the solar system, and Intermediate

fields of neutron stars. 

1). It produces infinite density singularities in the very strong fields

such as in black holes.

2).It does not necessarily explain dark matter in galaxy cores where we

know super-massive black holes exist and the galactic dark matter

therein,

3). It does not explain dark mater present in galactic halo's,and galactic

clusters such as the bullet cluster,

4).It does not explain the presence of cosmological dark matter as a whole.

5). It has not yet been fully corroborated by the studies of neutron stars

and in black holes.

6). It does not easily explain the presence of dark energy and cannot be

translated in quantum gravity.

Here I enclose a number of publications which explain all of these

phenomena, whilst agreeing with the results of GR where it has been

thoroughly tested.

1).First to obviate the infinite density singularities.

1a)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32897680_An_advanced_dynamic_adaptation_of_Newtonian_equations_of_gravity?ev=prf_pub

1b)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269689554_The_formulation_of_Dynamic_Newtonian_advanced_gravity_DNAg?ev=prf_pub

2).Secondly we explain the presence of dark matter at the centre of the

galaxy.

2a)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228858219_Advances_in_Black_Hole_Gravitational_Physics_and_Cold_Dark_Matter_Modelling._The_Gravity_of_Dark_Matter

3) Thirdly it is possible to explain the presence of dark matter in the

galactic halo.

3a)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269689929_Advances_in_Black_Hole_Physics_and_Dark_Matter_Modelling_of_the_Galactic_Halo?ev=prf_pub

4). It is able to explain the presence of cosmological dark matter

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32897680_An_advanced_dynamic_adaptation_of_Newtonian_equations_of_gravity

5). It is corroborated in neutron stars (including Data from radiation

damping ) and is corroborated by black hole studies.

5a)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32888463_An_advanced_modification_of_dynamicgravitation

5b).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269667939_Corroboration_of_Dynamic_Black_Hole_Gravitational_Physics_from_Observations_of_Cygnus_X-1

6) it explains dark energy and translates into quantum gravity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32899306_String_quintessence_and_the_formulation_of_advanced_quantum_gravity

Article An advanced dynamic adaptation of Newtonian equations of gravity

Article The formulation of Dynamic Newtonian advanced gravity, DNAg

Article Advances in Black Hole Gravitational Physics and Cold Dark M...

Article Advances in Black Hole Physics and Dark Matter Modelling of ...

Article An advanced modification of dynamic gravitation

Article Corroboration of Dynamic Black Hole Gravitational Physics fr...

Article String quintessence and the formulation of advanced quantum gravity

Antoine,

“…Are gravitational waves ripples in the curvature of spacetime…”

- the Matter’s spacetime is the absolute [5]4D Euclidian manifold (including, for example, till now seems nobody observed either the imaginary space or the imaginary time, as that GR postulates when claiming as real the Riemannian spacetime) and cannot be impacted by anything by definition – if somebody uses a true definition, of course; when in the GR there are no definitions/ explanations of what is spacetime at all;

“…or are it fluctuations of the gravitational field?”

- some changes of the gravity force in some points outside a system of masses, if this system isn’t stationary evidently exist – as, say, electrostatic field changes in some points outside a system of charges, if this system isn’t stationary. And that  indeed seems possible in framework of some theory that considers gravity (G-gM)field as some analogue of the E-M field. At least in this case there is no “spacetime ripples”.

“…Now gravitational waves have been observed…”

- that seems as a too bold claim. In serious physics for claims relating to some observation of a new physical effect is necessary a number of experiments that are made by a number of different independent groups, which use – and that is rather desirable – different experimental techniques. In other cases anything is possible; an example – the “discovering” of superluminal neutrino three years ago.

So let’s wait some other experimental events; though seems nobody knows now – how often some convenient "black holes’" pairs collapse in the tribal Matter.

At that indeed reproducible experiment that indeed tests the GR (more correctly – two experiments, but one was made with suffice statistics already – Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment) is simple and rather cheap – 1-2 $millions – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment

The result of this experiment with rater large probability will show that there is no “gravitational time dilation”;  and so – no a “spacetime curvature” (as well as no "ripples");

but in Nature there are only banal changes of clocks tick rate when clocks are placed in different point with different Newtonian gravity potentials - because of different corresponding gravitational mass defects; from what and from the PRS experiment follow  that photons change their energy when traveling between such points (in contrast to the GR claim), etc.

Cheers

Research The informational model – gravity; a next experiment

Astronomer Hilton Ratcliffe has explained below the impossible precision involved with LIGO. Recall that the BICEP2 team claimed to have sampled the first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after their Big Bang creation event for their alleged detection of primordial gravitational waves. What does just plain common sense tell you about the alleged precision?

Hilton Ratcliffe:

"DISCOVERY" OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVES

On Thursday, 11 February, 2016, a group of some one thousand scientists co-authored a paper announcing that the LIGO interferometric array had after more than a decade of fruitlessly accumulating data , positively identified the signature of gravitational waves coming from a deep space event. This was a phenomenon predicted by Albert Einstein in 1915 in a landmark paper henceforward known as The General Theory of Relativity. I have known for some time that results are being attributed to observations made with instruments that were inherently incapable of doing so. My scepticism is well known, and I consequently received dozens of requests to publish my view of the matter. In general, layman's terms, here it is.

My analysis:

The instruments that comprise LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) were set up to try to achieve a specific goal, consequent to the predictions of General Relativity Theory. The mirrors in the interferometer are set 4km apart. The expected variation in that distance would be 10^-18 metres or 10^-15 millimetres. In layman’s language, they are looking for a change in distance over the four kilometre separation of ONE THOUSAND TRILLIONTH OF A MILLIMETRE!

The change in distance equates to a required design sensitivity of the LIGO interferometer of one part in 10^-21. That is, a resolution of ONE PART in ONE BILLION TRILLION.

Let’s try to put the expected variation into some sort of comprehensible perspective. The diameter of a hydrogen atom is obtained experimentally at 10^-7 mm. Therefore, Ligo seeks to measure a distance that is ONE HUNDRED MILLIONTH of the diameter of a hydrogen atom. Put another way, if the change were one hundred million times greater than the one they claim to have measured, it would be the same as adding or subtracting a SINGLE ATOM to or from the four kilometre distance separating the mirrors.

That is probably unimaginable to most people, so let’s try to add further perspective.

The best precision mirror surfaces are polished to match the ideal, nearly parabolic surface to about 25 nanometers – about 3 ten-thousandths of the width of a human hair. That is incredibly fine tolerance, but let’s compare it with the difference in length that LIGO claims to measure. A nanometer is a unit of spatial measurement that is 10^-9 meter, or one billionth of a meter. Take it down one level – a nanometre is a millionth of a millimetre.

The most precisely polished astrophysical mirrors, like those used in LIGO, can have peaks 25 nm above and below the theoretical surface plane of the mirror. 50 nm is a BILLION TIMES bigger than the gravitational wave signature. In practical terms, it is impossible to measure the distance between the two mirrors in each interferometer (actually said to be 3999.5 metres) to the required tolerance so they have had to take an average, which is guesswork.

There are other conditions which change the distance between the mirrors by many orders of magnitude greater than the anticipated gravitational wave fluctuation. There is change in ambient temperature as the array goes through day and night cycles. Waves caused by seismic fluctuations are ever present, disturbing the separation. There are also anthropogenic waves, resulting from trucking, blasting, mining, and railroads, for example.

Then there are the influences affecting the light and its frequency that lie between the source of the radiation being measured and the Earth. There are all manner of objects, systems, and force fields in inter-galaxian space. These are not precisely known; some are completely invisible to us, yet they have a profound effect on light signal that simply cannot be quantified by measurement.

The LIGO instruments have all sorts of protective devices shielding them from extraneous kinetics and noise, but to filter those impediments out without fiddling with the sought-after signal, the LIGO scientists would have to guess their magnitude. That is not an empirically sound way to arrive at an accurate answer.

Ligo cost over $620 million US to construct. Reasearch grants and operating costs take that figure to well over one billion US dollars. Hold that thought.

To summarise, paraphrasing the words of Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg in reference to Edwin Hubble’s initial interpretation of galaxian redshifts, “...it seems they knew the answer they wanted to get.”

Hilton Ratcliffe

As for the LIGO Team's claim that two black holes (somewhere) merged to form one black hole (somewhere) to produce a 'chirp' in their contraption, it too is false:

Crothers, S.J., The Painlevé-Gullstrand ‘Extension’ - A Black Hole Fallacy, American Journal of Modern Physics, 5, Issue 1-1 , February 2016, Pages:33-39,

http://vixra.org/pdf/1512.0089v1.pdf

Sorry Acke, but raising your question on gravity like an alternative between GRT and GEM isn't correct or at least is very incomplete. For thoroughness of information I have to inform those who are uninformed that other alternatives exist in order to explain gravity, and here let me point out the "Physics of Gravitational Fields (PGF)". Thanks.

What matters is how many issues are solved by a theory. And there, GEM is at the same level of success as the Maxwell equations for electromagnetism.

 Daniele thanks for your reaction,

GEM as well as GRT predict the existence of gravitational waves propagating with the speed of light.  In the context of GRT it are ripples in the curvature of spacetime caused by accelerated objects;  in the context of GEM it are fluctuations in the gravitational field caused by accelerated objects.  Those different explanations are related with opposing views on the nature of spacetime. 

Referring to the claim that gravitational  waves would be observed, I ask the question : Which of these two descriptions of gravity (GRT or GEM) is the most plausible to understand the nature of these waves?  This question doesn’t exclude that alternative explanations are possible.

Yes Antoine, it is positive that you know there are other explanations and the two alternatives that you propose would have to be compared with them. And for instance I am available to compare PGF.

It is necessary to add (and to correct, in certain extent) the remark to  the SS post above.

Besides some changes of the gravity field in some points as a result of changes of a system of masses, there is another possibility of the gravity impact on some other mass in a point outside the system, which is possible, for example, in the gravitomagnetism that consider the gravity field as some analogue of the EM field.

So we can rather surely suggest that the gravity field has the mediators – some analogue to the photon – the graviton. There are no physical grounds to suggest that the gravity field is so unique that hasn’t a mediator.

Including – some single gravitons (which exist by itself “without corresponding gravitational charge" – i.e. gravitational mass), which differ in certain sense from “gravistatic” gravitons in that they can move in the space as usual “particles”, say, - as photons. So such gravitons can be observed rather far away from the source; and – analogously to photons – they rather probably move in the space as some rather large wave but are created and interact as pointlike particles that have rather large energy.

So it cannot be excluded that in  the LIGO experiment an interaction of gravitons were observed (but not a “spacetime ripple”, of course).

Correspondingly this installation possibly can be rather useful at experimental support of some theories of the quantum gravity, though there is an inconvenience – it is unknown when and where a next corresponding gravity cataclysm will happen in Universe.

However this installation could be yet more useful after rather little modification – if in an interferometer to add 3-rd vertical (for example – in a hole)  vertical arm having length 300-400 m and further to measure the possible [the probability isn’t, of course 100%, but isn’t equal to zero also] stochastic gravity interaction (see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979  (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests) ; a first approximation (seems with 2pi error) -  http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657v2 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245583444_On_the_photon_spectrums_of_some_monochromatic_beams_in_Earth_gravitation_field )) , the section 2.1.2. Monochromatic photon beam distortion

-  at that measurements could be made in any time and any times.

If at the measurements the negative result will be obtained – that would be, nonetheless, rather useful result. But an observation and further study of parameters of stochastic gravity interactions  will be rather interesting for physics…

Cheers

"The informational model – gravity; a next experiment" is attached by an error, but I cannot delete. Though this paper has some relation to the topic also...

Article The informational model - possible tests

Article On the photon spectrums of some monochromatic beams in Earth...

Research The informational model – gravity; a next experiment

The concept that photon is a mediator of the electromagnetic field is a completely wrong exotic concept that is still valid only in the obsolete standard model. Photon is an electromagnetic nanowave and therefore it is just the electromagnetic nanofield and it isn't a mediator of electromagnetic field. Photon would have to be referred only to visible band of light (4x1014 - 8x1014 Hz about), in fact it is more precise to say infrared, ultraviolet, X, gamma, delta, delta-Y rays for other bands with greater frequency. And for smaller frequency it is more precise to say long, middle, short radio waves and microwaves. Calling photons all these different evidences of electromagnetic field is an imprecision of the standard model. Consequently it is incorrect and imprecise to say photon is a mediator of electromagnetic field when one doesn't  know there are different evidences of electromagnetic field. It follows that it is similarly wrong to say graviton (exotic particle) is the mediator of gravitational field.

The gravity vawes can appeared as only density vawes.

To avoid confusion, a brief explanation of my interpretation of  the concept "graviton"  in the context of Gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM).

In that context it can be shown that accelerating a point mass m  causes a fluctuation in the gravitational field set up by m.  That fluctuation is travelling out from m with the speed of light and it is called a "gravitational wave".  A gravitational wave can deliver energy to a body on which it falls.  The density of the energy flow associated to a gravitational wave can be described by a vector that is analogue to the Poynting vector and there are good reasons to assume that the gravitational energy associated to a gravitational wave is transported as packets  of energy.  These packets or grains of energy are called "gravitons".  So, an accelerating  object radiates gravitational energy carried by gravitons.  

Gravitons do not play any role in the gravitational interaction as such.  In GEM the gravitational interactions between objects are explained by the mediation of the gravitational field that is considered as a constituent element of nature: matter set up a gravitational field; the gravitational field determines how matter accelerates when placed in it.

Article GRAVITO-ELECTROMAGNETISM EXPLAINED BY THE THEORY OF INFORMATONS

Antoine,

In Gravitoelectromagnetism wave would not create the signal that has been detected in LIGO.  In LIGO what is detected is a difference of lenght between two directions so indicating a curvature of local space.  While Gravitoelectromagnetism wave do not curve space but is a simple wave of gravitational field tranvelling into a uncurved space and so would not be detected by LIGO.

The only problem with the above logic is that if there is a gravitational wave into a fixed flat space then it is to be expected that it will compress the LIGO detector assymetrically and thus could generate a difference in distances and so then be wrongly be interpreted as a space curvature.  

Last November there was a three day Einstein Symposium at ETH in Zürich, which addressed a General Audience (except on the first afternoon). In this Lee Samuel Finn from Penn State gave a very pedagogical talk on what gravitational waves are and how they will be detected (that has been achieved in the meantime). This talk, and some others, can be seen as a video on :

einstein.phys.ethz.ch

The title of the talk is: "100 Years of Gravity: Notes from the Research Frontiers".

In the "Physics of Gravitational Fields (PGF)" it is demonstrated theoretically a gravitational perturbation, that we can call also gravitational wave, can be generated by the fall of a body into a real gravitational field, like the Earth gravitational field. I say "can be generated" and I don't  say  "is generated"  because no experimental evidence there is and we can talk now only about a theoretical hypothesis. It seems to me about this also GEM says the same thing. In PGF gravitational perturbation or wave is due only to the transient modification of the pre-existent gravitational field, for instance the Earth gravitational field, that is caused by the fall of body. In this context there is no need to suppose the existence of energy packets and of gravitons.

With regard to the LIGO experiment, it is claimed they have observed a gravitational wave produced by an event of collision of two black holes that would be happened billions of years ago at unimaginable distances from the Earth. I don't understand what real physics there is in this experiment: it is a pure fable dressed up to imaginary curvatures of space and differences of length. I think it is suitable to talk about research from one billion of years rather than Research Frontiers.

Louis Brassard: that is not correct. The LIGO detection is effectuated by measuring the bending of light. Gravitomagnetism finds a double bending of light, as explained in the annexed paper, where light can be seen as an impulse momentum. It is not the mass itself, but more precisily the gravity field that causes the bending.

The found signal is supposed to be the merging of black holes. The dipole gravity emission of that proces is detectable by the bending of light, just as light grazing the sun is detectable, and predicted by Gravitomagnetism.

The problem is that there is no proof that the gravitational perturbation  derives from a collision of two black holes happened one billion of years ago. Here there isn't light but a gravitational perturbation: I understand nevertheless in GEM there is no difference between gravitational field and electromagnetic field and here there is the mistake.

Thierry De Mees,

In figure 1. (Simplified operation of a gravitational wave observator)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO

My understanding is that LIGO just measured the difference of lenght in between the two directions.  The interference pattern at the receptor allows to deduce this difference in lenght.  I am not saying that I am right in my interpretation.  But you are telling me that the interference pattern is not caused by a difference of lenght but by a difference in bending of light.  I do not really understand how the bending would produce that interference pattern.  According to GR, the local curvature wave of space would curve one direction more than the other resulting in no deviation of light but with a change of distances.  

Understanding a fable isn't difficult.

Louis,

In what follows I will try to explain how a gravitational wave, described according to GEM, can effect LIGO.

Let   x  and  y  be the directions of the arms  L1  and  L2  of the interferometer, and let z be the direction perpendicular to the plane defined by the arms.  We consider the (optimized) situation where a uniform plane wave  of sinusoidal form (Eg, Bg)  is travelling in the  z-direction.  We assume that the gravitational field Eg is in the x-direction and that the gravitational induction Bg  is in the y-direction.   If  EM is the amplitude of the gravitational field, than  - according to GEM  - Eg  is given in magnitude by:  Eg = EM.sin(wt - kz)  with  k = w/c  and  the magnitude of Bg is given by: Bg = Eg/c.

When that gravitational wave is falling on the plane of the interferometer, the gravitational field Eg - being in the direction of L1 - will induce a longitudinal mechanical wave in the tube of the arm L1 what will result in a (very slight) oscillation of the mirror at its end.  The mirror at the end of  the arm L2 will not react on Eg because that field is perpendicular to L2.  So, the effective lenght the beam that is travelling through L1 will differ (in the manner of an harmonic time-function) from the effective lenght of the other beam that is travelling through L2, and the detector will record that the outgoing and reflected beams are out of phase.

It is clear that this can be generalized and that we can conclude that it is not impossible that the LIGO detector reacts on a gravitational wave as described by GEM.

A variance to the fable. All this reminds me another famous interferometer: Michelson-Morley's that still today doesn't have been understood and it causes so many troubles to physics.

Dear Amrit,

What you say in the first sentence is correct for the Newtonian theory. From the point of view of relativity, this is unacceptable and was one of the main reasons why Einstein began to develop a new theory of gravity. (According to later recollections by him, he first tried this in the framework of Special Relativity, but was soon convinced that this was not possible. Already in summer 1912 (while Prof. at ETH in Zürich) he came to the conclusion that a dynamical generalization of Minkowski's metric was the primary field for describing gravity, and he began his search for the field equations.

For weak fields of GR he published on 21 February 1918 a beautiful paper with the title "On Gravitational Waves'' ("Über Gravitationswellen), which went afterwards into all (good) textbooks on GR. (See Doc.1 in the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol.7, Princeton University Press).

“…What you say in the first sentence is correct for the Newtonian theory. From the point of view of relativity, this is unacceptable…”

- the Perihelion shift, which is considered now as one of main confirmations of the general relativity, was correctly estimated by Paul Gerber in 1902, when Einstein’s result, which is obtained according to “view of relativity”, is identical to the Gerber’s one. Here is nothing surprising – for example electrodynamics was practically totally – and correctly - developed by Maxwell, Heaviside,  Liénard, Wiechert, Lorentz etc. well before even the Lorentz 1904 theory appear. When Gerber considered just Newtonian gravity field and the finite speed of the gravity field spreading.

But what is more important – if somebody understands – what are the space, the time, and the spacetime – this somebody  understands also that the Matter’s spacetime is an realization, for concrete informational system “Matter”, of the fundamental “absolute” Rules/possibilities “Space” and “Time”; and this realization, as possibilities,  is, in fact, an absolute “empty container”, which cannot be impacted, “curved”, etc. by any material object inside.

Besides, again, - the GR directly and evidently predicts erroneous value for the “gravitational time dilation” (in the reality, of course, - for slowing down of material objects’,i.e. clocks’  tick rate) , i.e. the GR value (for weak fields) twice larger then possible “Newtonian gravity” value for the corresponding gravitational mass defect of the systems “Earth+clock” that just reveals as clock’s tick rate slowing.

Again, to confirm this – though evident theoretically – fact, experimentally is enough to compare the showings of a pair of clocks after one of clocks, after the synchronization at the bottom,  was lifted on a some height and after a few hours exposition on this height returns back.

The difference of the showings will be twice lesser then that was obtained in the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment. What is in compliance with Newton gravity and excludes “geometrical time dilation”, correspondingly – exclude any “curvature”(“waves”, etc.) of the spacetime. And such experiment could be made by 1-2 $millions  - seems near thousand times lesser then some experiments that were made already aimed at “confirmation of the GR”.

But from the above, again, doesn’t follow that LIGO and similar installations are useless at all, there is a probability that they would be useful for study extremely gravity fields in framework of some versions of the gravitomagnetism, quantum gravity, etc.- including, for example, experiment  that is pointed out in the last SS post on 2-th page here.

Cheers

Dear Sergey

Do you know the results for the (so far only) double pulsar, J0737-3039, providing by far the most impressive tests of GR ? So far all alternatives to GR have failed to reproduce simultaneously the  results for the 5 determined post-Keplerian parameters. Even more accurate results will soon be published, as I know from M. Kramer (Max Planck Institute of Radio Astronomy in Bonn). For a the published results, see, e.g., M. Kramer, and N. Wex, Class. Quantum Gravity 26,  073001 (2009). As an example, I quote the result of the perihelion shift = 16.89947(68) deg/yr. 

Norbert: there is no direct observation whatsoever for the double pulsar J0737-3039. Only the calculus fits. Moreover, the authors of the papers wrote that they made a best fit of the measured curve with the calculus. Indeed, several parameters are unknow and have to be guessed, like the masses and the spins. What they knew much better, was their orbital motion.

Finally, the calculus was made with a gravitomagnetic calculus, not really a good test for GR, rather for Heaviside's gravitomagnetic theory of 1893.

As Hafele pointed out, the satellite fly-by results are perfectly explained by gravitomagnetic calculus as well (see annex).

In my view fluctuations of the gravitational field are the field information waves symmerically surrounding massive objects, longitudial waves. Gravitational waves in turn are transverse ripple waves in the curvature of spacetime.

Dear Thierry

Obviously, you have not carefully studied the analysis of the the double pulsar. Since both neutron stars are pulsars, the ratio of their masses (called R) can be (and has been)  determined in a model independent way. The individual masses are then very accurately determined from one post-Newtonian parameter {the  authors use the periastron motion). Then the other four post- Newtonian parameters are  predicted, and agree very well with the observed values, deduced from the arrival time measurements over years. (I have seen not yet published values, which agree even better). I know all the gory details of this subject, as you may see from my detailed description in my GR-book: General Relativity, Graduate Texts in Physics, Springer 2013, p. 346-373. Please convince you of this, and do not come up with cheep buts ..., etc.